An unsullied conscience

Andrew Sullivan, while certainly one of my most often read bloggers, is nevertheless very good for a laugh sometimes. In recent posts, he has defended his "evolutionary" change of heart with regard to the Iraq War and refuses to acknowledge that those who opposed the war from the beginning were right. It all began with his analysis of Bush's surge speech, followed by the comments of a "condescending" reader who argues that anti-war protesters were right from the beginning. Cue a snide riposte from someone presumably closer to Andrew's views, the focus of which is:

The crux of the problem is that stalwart opponents of the war were, for the most part, nothing like the sophisticated visionaries your reader describes. The case for war barrelled along in large part precisely because opponents of the war were unable or unwilling to make a persuasive, coherent case for opposing it, and instead associated themselves with vacuous slogans, wanker academics and unreconstructed anti-globalists who fear corporations and hate trade. This is not a winning formula for shaping American policy.

Andrew happily agrees, presumably having found a "reasonable" partner in this discourse:

I agree. A few people - James Fallows, Joe Klein, Brent Scowcroft, for example - opposed the war for sane reasons. They deserve kudos as much as I deserve criticism for not listening to them closely enough. But I went to the pre-war anti-war marches as an observer. I did not hear arguments about the difficulties of managing a sectarian society, nor questions about troop levels, nor worries about the impact of the war on Iran's status in the region. I heard and saw often reflexive hostility to American power, partisan hatred of Bush, and blindness toward Saddam's atrocities. I remember what I saw. And I feel as estranged from that reflexive position today as I did then.

Now this is just absurd for several reasons. First, it matters immensely whether we are talking about (1) opposing the war qua this war as an illegal and underhanded enterprise, or (2) opposing the war as a potentially FUBAR'ed catastrophe. (Coincidentally, Iraq is both.)

So, if you think that the war was illegal and mendaciously sold to the American people from the beginning, you obviously aren't going to tick off Andrew's pathetic ex post facto laundry list of questions when opposing the war: "I did not hear arguments about the difficulties of managing a sectarian society, nor questions about troop levels, nor worries about the impact of the war on Iran's status in the region." That would be like saying, "I'm opposed to capital punishment, but just in case it does happen, I'm going to focus on how the killing should be humane, well planned, efficient, etc." Furthermore, it is obvious from Andrew's writings that if the war had gone swimmingly, he would be fine with it now. Only the "gross mismanagement" of the war is the problem. Yet those he describes as attending anti-war rallies were and are not having this argument at all. Therefore, his sentiments are largely superfluous.

But there's another problem. It's all well and good that "a few people opposed the war for sane reasons" (conveniently, two respectable journalists and a conservative), but demanding, as Andrew's reader does, that anti-war types "make a persuasive, coherent case for opposing it...instead [of] associat[ing] themselves with vacuous slogans, wanker academics and unreconstructed anti-globalists" misconstrues both the situation and the terms of the debate. What's being demanded is a nice, liberal sit-down in which each party presents its evidence systematically, and presto! the best argument wins. If the reader and Andrew think that the lead-up to the war was conducted in this fashion, they are frankly bonkers. The demand that war protesters "make a persuasive, coherent case for opposing it" is especially insulting. The anti-war position was the de facto persuasive, coherent case. The onus has always rested on the Bush administration to justify this perpetuating travesty.

Furthermore, to think that these sorts of questions can be decided by well-educated, respectable individuals making coherent arguments is to inhabit a magical world. I wish that could be so, but this presidency has been so doggedly anti-democratic and authoritarian that people have been forced to have recourse to the (perfectly legal) avenues available to them: protesting, marching, writing letters, calls for impeachment. Yet somehow these people are the detestable rabble who refuse to counter the Bush administration's "persuasive, coherent case" with their own! To sum up: the administration marched off to war with complete contempt for the democratic process, the fair presentation of information, and the notion of limitations on presidential power. Yet those who would protest these facts are automatically discredited by their association with "wanker academics" and "unreconstructed anti-globalists." Well, fuck you too. This is what we will have to deal with from Sullivan and other "pro-war, anti-execution of the war" types: they increasingly point out Bush's incompetance and ethical failures, but they shriek at even the slightest hint of being associated with someone like Chomsky or the A.N.S.W.E.R. coalition. Please, just don't let their individual reputations be smeared by such unsavory characters! How nobly then will they be remembered!